No.5074 [Last50 Posts]
It goes against the natural order.
A personal lament from a long time ago, reading an older book, and seeing the words "British Empire" when in those days there was such a thing. Today? No empires. No emperor. Only popular sovereignty. Only the People establish governments. This needs to be corrected.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5075
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5079
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5082
>tfw Georg Friedrich von Preußen said he would never want to be Kaiser or have any political responsibilities
>tfw has made 0 effort to reclaim his homeland
Modern European monarchies are the biggest thing that makes me question if I truely support monarchy.
>
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5086
Empires from Rome to London have encouraged mongrelization and other forms of degeneration. The Romans alone ended up with having foreign senators rival Italian born ones in numbers.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5093
>>5082
Be patient and pray that the glory days shall return. Hence
>pic related
It's not a question about this, but when they drop the "modern" part that simply matters. Someday.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5097
>>5093
Is it possible for a country to have a function monarchy and be ethno-nationalist? After so many generations lots of royal families would have to marry nobles from other countries lest they become inbred again. I’m not sure if I would want a Russian or French monarch which leads me back to NatSoc but I think I’ve hit a point where the more I read about Hitler the less I agree with what he says. And in the end I am quite skeptical of a stable succession had Germany won/not had the war. Sometimes I think of some sort of a mix between NatSoc and monarchy but I haven’t thought out exactly how it would work or if it could.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5099
>>5097
Preferably, inter-marry with a generic ethnic gathering like Celtic/Germanic/Slavic. On nationality? Somewhat, but royals and extend the national line. The only problem is honestly miscegenation . Even people of nations marry from other European nations. Nobility too. Their nations included.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5109
>>5075
>pretending the Romans weren't a degenerate multicultural cesspit
The Romans are dead and you can thank their cucking.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5110
Imperialism is a form of welfare, if at all possible.
>>5097
I would say yes. Populations are naturally ethno-nationalist without decades of democracy, progressivism, and kike propaganda pumping bad ideas into their heads. Since a monarch has no real incentive to promote multicultural fuckery, and quite a few incentives against it, there's no reason to expect him to try and disrupt the in-group preference of his subjects. Much of Russia's nobility was German, and even the Romanov dynasty was as much a German family as it was a Russian one. In spite of this, the Russian people maintained their identity just fine, albeit it was one somewhat different from the identity of the nobility.
>After so many generations lots of royal families would have to marry nobles from other countries lest they become inbred again
It would be better for a historyfag to confirm this, but as I understand it inbreeding and genetic defects were actually pretty rare among monarchs, and people blew a couple exceptions way out of proportion. Most extra-national marriages were for to secure alliances rather than fresh genes, no?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5114
>>5110
The only way selective breeding would cause problems would be if the royals were breeding from 1st cousins up.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5115
>>5110
avoid* if at all possible, excuse me.
>>5114
Right, so barring a couple exceptions like that one French prince of course it's the fucking French it's just a meme modernists use to make fun of monarchy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5121
>>5097
I made a thread on the concept of a national socialist monarchy a while ago >>4564 . I outlined some key ideas in regards to succession, mostly revolving around the struggle between inheritance vs meritocracy. You might want to check it out, and perhaps add to it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5141
>>5110
>Da juice owns the US
>It's okay if an inbred German noble rules over Slavs and treats the country like his personal latifundia tho
How do you live with the cognitive dissonance?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5144
>>5141
The incentives and what transpires are fundamentally different. Plus, slavs and germs are both hwhite inb4 >implying
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5192
>>5141
>It's okay if an inbred German noble rules over Slavs and treats the country like his personal latifundia tho
This is the great ideal, kiddo.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5215
>>5141
>space after reply
>reddit spacing
>thinks popularity contests are a form of meritocracy
>thinks the average person even remotely knows what’s good for themselves let alone governing
>nobles elected, inherited, or married on to a throne often fucked the country for their own ethnicity
>people take care of their property worse than someone renting it for 4-5 years
Is cuckchan just a stopover for you Redditfags to shit here or do you think it is it worse than the reddit-lite I thought it was?
>>5121
I’ll check it out after finals, I’m still not sure if I’m set on Monarchism but maybe that thread can convince me and I can stick around for more than a week per 5 months. Though I’m a nationalist first and any loyalty I would have to a monarch would be resultant only from me thinking he is doing the people and nation good, I think I’d have a hard time supporting the crown if a shitty Heir was appointed, though from what I know of HRE shenanigans it wasn’t too common that you got a truly awful king.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5251
>>5121
>national socialist monarchy
you came up with it because korwin recently started working with neetsocs like winnicki to get to european parliament?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5264
>>5110
>Imperialism is another form of welfare
>imperialism
This makes no sense to me.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5266
>>5264
You're providing resources to those you aren't the same race or ethnicity as.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5269
>>5266
>he thinks that all imperialism is just colonialism
>he doesn't want an empire, just a tiny isolated, increasingly weak micro-state because muh 'workers' or 'muh isolated ethnostate' even though the Japanese had imperialism and were increasingly isolationist
>concerning colonialism, it wasn't like foreign aid we see today. colonial empires were all about military strategy, resources independent of landscape, and spreading the 'frontiersman' experience
I don't understand this mediocre mentality. There is no reason to embrace weakness. Who the hell doesn't want an empire?
WHO THE HELL DOESN'T WANT AN EMPIRE?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5270
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?
How could you not want an empire? What is this republicanism of 'no emperors' deal? They aren't all colonialists. Empires are the foundation of Western civlization and we have people here denying the importance of empires. For what? Muh ideology. Or, muh workers. Emperors have presided over Christendom. Empires have expanded the roots of Rome across Europe. Empires have been the soul of Western man. You choose the ideology of death.
>we don't want empires
What do you autists even want? Pan-Europeanism? That's ridiculous. Micro-kingdoms/divided kingdoms? I would admit this is better, but no empires? How could people not want empires? This seals the deal. Republicans and ideologues have excluded everything grand and imperial for their mediocre ideals and platitudes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5271
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5290
>WHO THE HELL DOESN'T WANT AN EMPIRE?
Well at least he's not thinking like a subject.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5291
>>5264
You're spending large amounts of your own wealth to bring civilization to ignorant savages, that's definitionally welfare to me.
>the 'frontiersman' experience
Is it really a "frontiersman experience" if your acts are being sanctioned and subsidized by state efforts? Real frontiersmen go out and do that shit on their own, they don't need to wait for someone to give them the OK to homestead.
>colonial empires were all about military strategy
Military strategy in what sense? What strategic advantage did Jamestown give the British Crown?
>resources independent of landscape
The colonies cost more resources to maintain than they brought in.
>Empires are the foundation of Western civlization
Empires presided over much of what became Western civilization, big difference. And you don't need an empire to have a lasting impact; the Greeks had just as much if not more influence on modern philosophy than the Romans did, despite spending the majority of their existence as independent city-states.
>You choose the ideology of death
Since when is "not an empire" an ideology?
I don't want some pan-Europeanism LARP, I don't think anyone else on here does either. I just don't give a shit about expansionism; it provides no benefit to me and it provides no benefit to the kingdom. It's just spending a lot of money on unproductive dickwaving, the pyramid-building of its time.
>Empires have expanded the roots of Rome across Europe
…After which Rome collapsed in on itself in a very big way and fucked things up for the entire region afterwards. Empires don't last, they inevitably collapse within ~250 years or so, and I'd prefer to live in a small, stable kingdom that doesn't expand but keeps its core for centuries. The candle that burns all through the night rather than the bonfire which consumes all its fuel within twenty minutes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5293
>>5291
I don't have time to bicker back and forth about colonialism. I'll just point one thing out.
>and I'd prefer to live in a small, stable kingdom that doesn't expand but keeps its core for centuries.
I get you're trying to make a point here, but why do people always have to settle for less? What about a BIG country like Russia? What about an empire that reaches over to Constantinople? How about a big country rather than a small and comfortable kangdom? Serbians want a 'Greater Serbia', but in reality the restoration of the Serbian Empire. Despite what you feel about Rome, the glory of Rome never fades like a candle to the Italians. The British Empire was the most grand of maritime powers.
>Military strategy in what sense?
Consider Gibraltar.
>You're spending large amounts of your own wealth to bring civilization to ignorant savages
I'm not going to turn multiculturalist on you, but not all civilizations, cultures, and peoples are the same level of ignorant savage. Some nations are better than others. Not everyone outside the Western world are Sub Saharan Africans. There are hierarchies in other territories native and willing to align with a greater empire for the benefit of an alliance, trade, or taking out a rival.
>Is it really a "frontiersman experience" if your acts are being sanctioned and subsidized by state efforts?
Not entirely. It isn't only that the state demands it, but they have the opportunity to go somewhere else and leave the hierarchy of another land to take to another. This is perfectly within their interests.
>The colonies cost more resources to maintain than they brought in.
Sometimes colonies are low maintenance or largely ignored and later become valuable spots for commerce. Hong Kong and Singapore under the British Empire are good examples. Are they sometimes worth the resources they obtain? Not all resources are equal worth. Sometimes the resources of another land are worth the exchange bargained for.
>Empires presided over much of what became Western civilization, big difference.
This is unsatisfactory. Emperors have been very important in the foundation of Western civilization.
>the Greeks had just as much if not more influence on modern philosophy than the Romans did, despite spending the majority of their existence as independent city-states.
Roman Empire incorporated Greek culture and philosophy. They wrote the Aeneid to glorify Rome and connect it to Greece. The Greeks had their own Greek Empire very influential for the spread of Hellenistic culture and the ascending of Greece as an influence in the Mediterranean.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5297
>>5293
>but why do people always have to settle for less?
You keep saying this, but who's getting "less?" Not the subjects, my little plot of land is still my little plot of land no matter how many miles are between it and the border. The king is getting "more" land and thus more tax, but he's also getting more expenses plus the difficulties of hostilities between the native population and the newly-annexed. Again, the only thing that's "gained" is the sovereign's ability to say, 'lookit me, I have the most clay.' Maybe those bragging rights are worth a lot to you, but I really couldn't give two shits about them.
Further, the bigger and "grander" the empire is, the more valuable the throne becomes, and the bloodier the potential wars for succession. You speak much of the Glory of Rome, but remember that the Romans had civil wars like it was going out of style, and the throne changed hands so quickly that holding it became meaningless. And if holding the throne is meaningless, the throne itself is meaningless. And if the throne has no meaning, the "glorious" empire isn't glorious anymore.
>This is perfectly within their interests.
Yeah, that was my point. Pioneering and homesteading is its own reward, and people will do it whether or not they live in an empire.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5298
>>5297
>Not the subjects, my little plot of land is still my little plot of land no matter how many miles are between it and the border.
This ignores the ability to access the recently claimed territory. It seems like you don't want recognize countries/nations as a thing with their hierarchies and kings.
>no empires because muh no taxation without representation
Between you and the Marxists as anti-imperialists, this is my biggest problem. You act like taxation is the only economic prospect of empire. Not manpower and resources. Not cultural satisfaction. Not diplomacy. Not for any other reason.
>'lookit me, I have the most clay.'
This is what status and power is about.
>and the bloodier the potential wars for succession.
This inevitably happens with any political structure. The Romans were a contentious people and always feuded with power. It is a tough game. An empire is still the ideal objective in terms of monarchy and status.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5299
>>5298
>ability to access the recently claimed territory
I don't see this as a good thing. If it were economically advantageous to for men to move between the two territories they would already be doing so when they were two separate kingdoms, either directly or indirectly through free trade agreements. If it's disadvantageous for movement to happen, e.g. if the neighboring kingdom is full of shitskins, then why would I want to make it easier? You don't need political integration to have economic integration; if anything the two are inversely related. The smaller the territory the more it benefits from free trade, whereas larger territories have a tendency to pursue autarky and implement increasingly byzantine hint, hint regulations and trade barriers.
>ou act like taxation is the only economic prospect of empire. Not manpower and resources. Not cultural satisfaction. Not diplomacy. Not for any other reason.
Manpower and resources, if they can't be obtained through trade between the two territories, are just another form of taxation. I don't know what "cultural satisfaction" is or what it entails. Personally I'm more than satisfied with my own culture and don't need to incorporate that of others into it. Expansionism only aids diplomacy in the short term. In the long term, expansionist tendencies makes other states less likely to with you, as they are now uncertain how long you will be their ally, and how long it will be until your aggression turns towards them. So yeah, more people/resources to tax is the only possible gain, and in most cases they're offset by the increase in liabilities you incur. You point out Hong Kong and Singapore as examples of good, profitable colonies, but these are also the exception and not the rule. Chances are your kingdom isn't surrounded by a dozen Hong Kongs waiting for you to grab them, it's surrounded by the usual riffraff. You could try and single out exclusively profitable endeavours to colonize, but then you're not really acting as a king anymore, but as an insurance firm.
>This is what status and power is about.
Again, maybe bragging rights are worth the price you pay for them for you, but I see minimal utility in that.
>This inevitably happens with any political structure.
But the bigger that structure is, the bloodier it gets. No one's going to fight to the death over becoming regional manager of the post office.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5300
>>5298
Homogeneity is necessary for societal stability. Diversity leads to entropy. An empire needs to invest resources into terrorizing and bribing those who don't belong the founder's stock that could be spent on the founder's stock.
Every last empire that included those who didn't belong collapsed into civil war as the outsiders tire of the yolk, was invaded and conquered by more vigorous and homogeneous invaders.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5301
>>5299
>If it were economically advantageous to for men to move between the two territories they would already be doing so when they were two separate kingdoms
The world has borders. It has walls. It has nations. Trade is economically advantageous, yes, but not everything works out for the favor of merchants. There will be resistance for trade. Not all peoples hold hands and like each other, particularly neighbors. You get good neighbors and bad neighbors. As for economically advantageous, yes they would trade, but always to the benefit of each other and the goal of empire is to reduce these restrictions for your empire and your people and not the other end. Reduce their barriers.
>The smaller the territory the more it benefits from free trade, whereas larger territories have a tendency to pursue autarky and implement increasingly byzantine hint, hint regulations and trade barriers.
Or you could absorb them, not have to worry about of their trade barriers at all, and simply integrate them into the empire.
>If it's disadvantageous for movement to happen, e.g. if the neighboring kingdom is full of shitskins, then why would I want to make it easier?
You keep having to binge on this problem, but empires throughout history have also been central for unification. I don't care what some nationalists like to believe, the German Empire unified the Germans and had a coronation in the Palace of Versailles. This was the highest victory in recent German history. Not all imperialism is colonial. Imperialism isn't always about massive, sprawling and overseas territories.
>inb4 muh blood and muh wars
I am not really content with this pacifist attitude. This is a bloody world. You are going to get eaten for being a small fish in the pond, especially if you don't prepare for battle.
>I don't know what "cultural satisfaction" is or what it entails.
Retaking Constantinople. Having a glorious empire. Making a king into an emperor.
>if they can't be obtained through trade between the two territories, are just another form of taxation
What if you obtained the land from another country with tariffs? Absorbing that territory means less taxes for those people. Reduced cost.
>Chances are your kingdom isn't surrounded by a dozen Hong Kongs waiting for you to grab them, it's surrounded by the usual riffraff. You could try and single out exclusively profitable endeavours to colonize, but then you're not really acting as a king anymore, but as an insurance firm.
Usual riffraft. More territory always has potential and prospect. You always look at this with people involved. What about a territorial conflict over land itself? What about grabbing islands uninhabited?
>Again, maybe bragging rights are worth the price you pay for them for you, but I see minimal utility in that.
Bragging rights. No, it's really what status and power are about. Minimal utility? In having land and power?
>Homogeneity is necessary for societal stability. Diversity leads to entropy. An empire needs to invest resources into terrorizing and bribing those who don't belong the founder's stock that could be spent on the founder's stock.
Not all empires are diversity. This is a stupid argument. It ignores all the landlocked empires and ignores any prospect for an ethnic empire. This is just not always the case.
>was invaded and conquered by more vigorous and homogeneous invaders.
Empire of Japan. Japan is definitely a homogeneous country. Got invaded by the United States. USA is not homogeneous, not an empire, not the ideal ethnostate. This leads me to wonder why nationalists hate empires when some empires have done them very well in uniting their nations.
>inb4 muh Austro-Hungarian Empire
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5302
How about the Russian Empire? You said they scored high on the freedom index. They were a sprawling empire. The Russian Empire was among the largest of empires. There was a Tsar and an imperial dynasty.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5306
>>5270
>Pan-Europeanism
Globalism-lite
>Micro-kingdoms/divided kingdoms?
No need to take a dozen steps backwards.
>I would admit this is better, but no empires? How could people not want empires?
Austro-Hungary and Ottoman’s comes to mind when I think of Empire. While I suppose England has done fairly well with dealing with the other British ethnicities (except bretons) and the French just left them alone until Napoleon and then culture converted pretty much the whole country. The Kaiserreich was mostly German with Posen and the Prussian and Silesian border regions pretty much being the only areas with majority non-Germans (and Schleswig), though admittedly I’m not too sure on the ethnic composition of Elsaß-Lothringen in the 1800’s I assume it was mostly German with a large French minority, all of which is a fairly small amount.
I think Empires are best done out of Europe, but I’m a nationalist before a Monarchist. (Which I suppose may be a “republican” ideology seeing as 18th century Nationalist Revolutionaries were mostly liberals. Though they did offer Friedrich Wilhelm IV von Preußen the title of Emperor of Germans. I see no reason why I should be a loyal subject of a foreign ruler or nation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5308
>>5301
>Not all empires are diversity. This is a stupid argument. It ignores all the landlocked empires and ignores any prospect for an ethnic empire. This is just not always the case.
It's happened enough. Even something as long lasting as the Persian's empire depended on bloodshed and suffered from racial/ethnic tensions that were exploited by enemies.
>Empire of Japan. Japan is definitely a homogeneous country. Got invaded by the United States.
Okay.
>USA is not homogeneous, not an empire, not the ideal ethnostate.
It was a racist (as in actually racist) settler state founded on a rich land with a maintained caste system. It conquered plenty of territory both in the mainland and outside. It was from the start a mess of contradictions that were never settled. It's state today was really inevitable to be blunt.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5309
>>5306
>Though they did offer Friedrich Wilhelm IV von Preußen the title of Emperor of Germans. I see no reason why I should be a loyal subject of a foreign ruler or nation.
The People™ who expect a monarch to wear a crown from them rather than by their Divine Right don't understand monarchy. A monarch like Frederick William IV wears a crown because it is his heritage and his people. To abandon the crown of Prussia for Germany alone is abandoning the heritage and history of Prussia and Frederick the Great and the other ancestral bonds. The German Empire became a unified German empire, coronation in Versailles, and maintained the spirit of Prussia with the German Emperor being Prussian and a German Emperor. By definition, this is a 'popular sovereign', but not 'popular sovereignty'. There was a 'German Emperor'.
In other words, how can a proud nationalists not be content with an imperial dynasty? What the heck. Nationality as a concept existed prior to the French Revolution. Kill this falsehood. Monarchies are about paternal fidelity, blood, and status, but they are also about nations too.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5310
Let's make one thing clear:
Nobody wants to be ruled by a foreign nation, but everyone wants their nation to be the top dog. This world is unfair. Not all people get to be top of the ladder and emperors. It is great to have an emperor.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5312
>>5301
>Not all empires are diversity.
The definition of empire I have always been familiar with is
>a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority
And while it may be that I group ethnicities together more rigidly then those who defined the word I believe that entails multiethnic countries.
>Empire of Japan. Japan is definitely a homogeneous country.
Japan is, the empire of Japan had a significant Korean population as well as all those other non-Japanese Asians.
>>5309
>The People™ who expect a monarch to wear a crown from them rather than by their Divine Right don't understand monarchy. A monarch like Frederick William IV wears a crown because it is his heritage and his people.
I don’t believe there was any condition to abandon the Prussian Monarchy, I’m sure it would have been a dual crown like the Kaiers had.
>To abandon the crown of Prussia for Germany alone is abandoning the heritage and history of Prussia and Frederick the Great and the other ancestral bonds.
No, not really, Friedrich the great was a German just as every other Hohenzollern (well I suppose Wilhelm II was only partially ethnic German). In Old Fritz’s lifetime he was already referred to as a modern Hermann (Arminius), by non-Prussian Germans and was seen by many, especially south German protestants, as the protector of Germans and a unitary symbol. This was nearly 100 years before the nationalist revolutions. I cannot imagine anyone would have even proposed that Prussia be dismantled in exchange for a theoretical (1848) German Empire.
>The German Empire became a unified German empire, coronation in Versailles, and maintained the spirit of Prussia with the German Emperor being Prussian and a German Emperor. By definition, this is a 'popular sovereign', but not 'popular sovereignty'. There was a 'German Emperor'.
Popular sovereignty is just another term for popularity contest governing. While I am a staunch supporter of the Second Reich I would hesitate to call the Kaisers Emperors of Germans, since they were missing quite a large section of Southern Germany. Sort of like how the first two Prussian Kings were the King IN Prussia but not King OF Prussia (until Friedrich the great).
>In other words, how can a proud nationalists not be content with an imperial dynasty? What the heck.
I have no desire to expand into land that contains only foreigners, except in potential colonial ventures into the third world.
>Nationality as a concept existed prior to the French Revolution. Kill this falsehood. Monarchies are about paternal fidelity, blood, and status, but they are also about nations too.
Yes but it was afterwards that it evolved into polities and major relevance.
>>5310
Yes but that doesn’t mean every ruler needs to set goals to conquer everything on his borders.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5314
>>5312
>The definition of empire I have always been familiar with is
Then burn your dictionary. Neo-globalist and internationalist republican models are not empires. Imperial status is an extension of monarchy, part of the hierarchy, where emperors are above kings in temporal power and authority. Empires are about an imperial dynasty. The Emperor and virtuous office. Neo-imperialism, or proxy imperialism, whatever you call it, isn't imperialism. It is a bastardized international offspring of modernism and fails where imperialism flourishes. It is rootless without a concept of vassalhood, has no imperial dynasty, and doesn't have any significance except for ideological expansion – not cultural or national ascending. The ideological foundation for globalism and hegemony is not imperialism. Imperialism is not solely colonialism. How much do I have to nail this in your head?
>I’m sure it would have been a dual crown like the Kaiers had.
Social contract theory is all about 'The People™' giving crowns. You are not content with the coronation at Versailles, then I don't have anything to offer you.
>Friedrich the great was a German just as every other Hohenzollern
Prussian, too. The Kingdom of Prussia. You can't just remove all the other German monarchies in this pan-German reich. The 2nd German Empire wasn't only Prussia. It was the unification of other kingdoms under an imperial crown and the Kingdom of Prussia.
>I would hesitate to call the Kaisers Emperors of Germans, since they were missing quite a large section of Southern Germany.
You completely misunderstood what I told you. I never said 'Emperor of Germany', but popular sovereign as a 'German Emperor'. There was just another empire.
>I have no desire to expand into land that contains only foreigners, except in potential colonial ventures into the third world.
Uh huh.
>Yes but it was afterwards that it evolved into polities and major relevance.
The 2nd German Empire became more nationalistic. It partnered with the other empire of Franz Joseph I and made propaganda putting reverence for the crown and the people. Believe it or not, before WW1 and the collapse, monarchy as a concept and nationalism were becoming very close. Most monarchies were becoming increasingly nationalistic.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5315
You cannot be pro-2nd German Empire and be anti-Prussia.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5317
If these two images don't arouse national tendencies, then you're lost to me. The coronation at Versailles was such a kickback at the French when they won the war and the Battle of Sedan, the French chimped out and held a grudge for centuries. Started a commune. Emperor Napoleon III lost his glory. The 2nd German Empire began. If you thinking of WW2, and Hitler moving into Paris, this was the equivalent of just that, except they won and founded their empire. The Palace of Versailles was the ultimate monarchical symbol of French power and glory built by King Louis XIV.
>2nd pic
Reveals social contract theory and divine right in two. Reveals a Kaiser holding a flag, 'Gott Mitt Uns', an Iron Cross with a providential sunlight behind and thunder/lightning raining down symbolizing Divine Right of Kings. To reveal social contract theory and nationalistic tendencies of 'The People', you see in that image little people tossing up their hats showing their consent as a whole as social contract theory. Before WW1 and beginning with the foundation of the 2nd German Empire, you had the perfect reconciliation of monarchy and all its spiritual values with the nationalistic tendencies and pride of nation. If this isn't good enough for nationalists, grab a gun and shoot yourself in the head. Just take a bullet and end it. You have become a utopian. I cannot save you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5318
>>5317
In that fateful war when the 2nd German Empire ended, they had to have the Treaty of Versailles. There was no other choice. They demanded it to roll back the highest German victory. The coronation at Versailles in the Hall of Mirrors was crowning their Emperor in the French king's castle. There was only one way to undo this effect and that is why it was so outrageous.
>post-WW1
The Weimar Republic and DDR that republicans fawn over were products of defeat. They were the direct products of losing a war. That goes to every republican animal that admires those entities that were so anti-German. As for the Third Reich, it was a reaction to the Weimar Republic. It was unfortunate for the 2nd German Empire to have been the most authentic German state without anything imposed ideologically or from foreign nations.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5319
>>5314
>The ideological foundation for globalism and hegemony is not imperialism.
I never stated the opposite.
>Imperialism is not solely colonialism. How much do I have to nail this in your head?
Enough to change my entire life’s knowledge of the word based off of “official” definitions, I guess.
>Social contract theory is all about 'The People™' giving crowns. You are not content with the coronation at Versailles, then I don't have anything to offer you.
I can’t say I 100% am, since Austria was left out (of no ones fault but the Habsburg’s). I am not arguing that Friedrich Wilhelm IV should have taken the crown. I merely brought it up because most nationalist movements seemed to be republican at the time and yet they still wanted an emperor. I assume had he accepted the crown, which the nationalists really had no authority to offer, they would have demanded a parliamentary monarchy, and likely would have obsoleted the Kaiser to the point of Britian’s Monarchy. I think a unifying war with most German states accepting the union was the best option as a group of Nationalist Revolutionaries offering a crown over the sovereign of Bavaria, Baden, the Hansa, ect. likely would be viewed with an validity by those states.
>Prussian, too. The Kingdom of Prussia. You can't just remove all the other German monarchies in this pan-German reich. The 2nd German Empire wasn't only Prussia. It was the unification of other kingdoms under an imperial crown and the Kingdom of Prussia.
I am well aware of the history and never stated otherwise. Stating that Friedrich the Great was German doesn’t mean he wasn’t Prussian, but Prussian isn’t a comparable term to German. Ethnic Prussians were a Baltic Slavic group of which about half were killed in crusades and he rest mixed with German settlers in the Teutonic order. Even Prussia in 1701 was made up of mostly Brandenburgian Germans. Changing the state name to Prussia didn’t change the ethnicity of the Germans living there and the acquired territories certainly didn’t experience any ethnic change. I’d say Prussian only describes the lost Slavic tribe and maybe Baltic Germans living in geographic Prussia, Prussian is much more so a nationality then ethnicity. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Prussia was a glorious state and example of the German people.
>>5315
I’m in absolutely no sense anti-Prussia. It’s one of my greatest hopes to live to see, if not be a part of the requisition of Prussia. But I am a irredentist not a Revanchist.
>>5317
>If these two images don't arouse national tendencies
Both are already on my hard drive.
>The Palace of Versailles was the ultimate monarchical symbol of French power and glory built by King Louis XIV.
Holding the crowing in the Hall of Mirrors is so cheeky and smug, I cannot even imagine how humiliating it must have been. Not only did you just utterly lose a war to your rival but in doing so your rival just unified into an even greater nation, and did so in your nation’s greatest palace. No wonder they wanted to destroy Germany after WWI
>thinking I’m so daft as to need you to explain every element and symbol
I only stated that the English definition of Empire is literally a multiethnic or multicultural state, and that definition is the one I have know my whole life, if the definition has been changed from its original meaning there is not much I could have done about that. I have no issue with monarchy and nationalism, the issue I would have would be a monarchy expanding and annexing a whole host of foreign people’s as you have supported several time’s already.
>>5318
>There was no other choice. They demanded it to roll back the highest German victory. The coronation at Versailles in the Hall of Mirrors was crowning their Emperor in the French king's castle. There was only one way to undo this effect and that is why it was so outrageous.
If you didn’t know Hitler had the exact train carriage drug out to the exact spot that the German empire signed the armistice and forced the French to surrender there. It didn’t help the French that they also recreated the Prussian’s victory March through Paris. I hope this can become a centennial German celebration to hold a victory march to Prussia’s Gloria as German troops Stechmarsching down the streets of Paris.
>As for the Third Reich, it was a reaction to the Weimar Republic. It was unfortunate for the 2nd German Empire to have been the most authentic German state without anything imposed ideologically or from foreign nations.
I’d say the Third Reich was equally a reaction to Bolshevikism as the Weimar Republic. As a reaction I think it was quite the natural German movement, since they were rejecting foreign ideology for a German created one.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5320
>>5319
*likely would be viewed without any validity by those states.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5321
>>5319
You are so daft.
Are you a national socialist? I get annoyed going on /pol/ and finding those types crapping on the 2nd German Empire. Words like 'the monarchy failed' and 'they lost the war' don't compare when the Third Reich also lost the war against Jewry. I'm only hostile because there are so many uppity nationalist types.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5323
>>5315
And I forgot to mention to not post any more hetalia shit. I’m sick of seeing that faggy anime or its retarded fans everytime I try to look up something Prussia related. I have accidentally seen enough Fujoshi-trash fanart that I don’t need to be reminded of it here. Also that caption is retarded, it wasn’t the erasure of Prussia from the map, but the 70 years of anti-German propaganda, guilt and the erasing of German history and culture that has made the modern German so complacent. My mom knows next to nothing about Prussia besides the name Friederich the Great and Bismarck. Her school taught nothing of German history and she thinks the 3rd Reich was just a copy of the 2nd Reich but anti-Semitic.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5324
>>5323
Nobody gives a fuck how you feel about anime.
>Also that caption is retarded, it wasn’t the erasure of Prussia from the map, but the 70 years of anti-German propaganda, guilt and the erasing of German history and culture that has made the modern German so complacent.
Do you realize that Prussia is such a part of relevant German history and culture that erasing Prussia was basically just that?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5325
>>5321
>You are so daft.
How so? Because my definition of Empire comes from the English definition and thus I was unable to know your definition of it? I feel like you are completely ignoring 99% of what I say.
>I get annoyed going on /pol/
Your sentence should end there. /pol/ is full of sub 8 iq retards and is nothing but an echo chamber for neo-con polities with swastikas painted on. You cannot have meaningful discussion there.
>and finding those types crapping on the 2nd German Empire. Words like 'the monarchy failed' and 'they lost the war'
The monarchy didn’t fail but they did lose the war. There was no way they could have beaten both Britain and the US. France was beaten within the first offensive and only survived due to British reinforcements. Perhaps the close of the eastern front may have changed something but I am not an alternate history person.
>don't compare when the Third Reich also lost the war against Jewry. I'm only hostile because there are so many uppity nationalist types.
As I said I am a nationalist before a monarchist, I only support what government I think is best for the nation. I will not support a dynasty that harms the nation unnecessarily. Whether that means replacement with another royal family or a whole new government is only something I could say if such an event occurred. Though it’s unlike for me to ever live longer than two Emperors so that is all what if, and nothing I will likely ever have to actually think about realistically. If a emperor is the best way for the nation then he and his government 100% have my support, but only if.
>>5324
>Nobody gives a fuck how you feel about anime
There’s a difference between good anime and trash. Hetalia is trash, it’s fans are trash. Legend of Galactic Heros isn’t even comparable to Hetalia. It’s rather silly to defend the medium when someone attacks a single property. You wouldn’t defend all video games if someone said Fallout 76 was a trash game.
>Do you realize that Prussia is such a part of relevant German history and culture that erasing Prussia was basically just that?
Do you realize that Prussia is such a part of relevant German history and culture that merely erasing it from the map doesn’t erase it’s lasting impact?
If your father was very involved in easing you and greatly impacted your development would you suddenly become a different person once he died? No, you still have all those things he taught you and his impact on you will not magically disappear just because he died. But if a bunch of people started gaslighting you and telling you your father was a terrible person then you would change.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5326
>>5323
Posting this to spite you.
If you're only here to ramble about how the 2nd German Empire wasn't good enough because it wasn't ethnically pure enough for your tastes, then go back to where you came from. Or if you're here to get your panties in a bundle because the legacy of the 2nd German Empire isn't satisfactory enough for you out of an obsession with the 1st or 3nd Reich, what am I to say?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5327
>>5325
Half the crap you posted was responding to me. I'm flabbergasted you don't recognize the monarchist perspective. You have your nationalist perspective and there is the monarchist perspective. I was initially explaining to you why it's unpalatable to give up the divine right of kings and political pragmaticism to appease, as you stated, liberal republican nationalists.
>muh definition
You haven't even provided a goddamn definition.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5328
>>5325
I consider myself a nationalist and a monarchist. As usual, the nationalist rejection of dynastic patriotism and the monarchy for social contract theory. I don't care what 'you' or the People™ support. I don't care what your mother supports and thinks. I love nationalism, and I don't really get triggered with Hitler or others, but I get annoyed with this kind of banter about 'national interest' as opposed to monarchical. If you feel that a partisanship is more national than a monarchy or a sovereign crown, where am I going to reconcile your feelings with monarchy? I am always struggling to sell it to others around here like the libertarians and anarchists. If you cannot be appeased, I will not bother to appease you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5330
>>5319
>I only stated that the English definition of Empire is literally a multiethnic or multicultural state, and that definition is the one I have know my whole life, if the definition has been changed from its original meaning there is not much I could have done about that. I have no issue with monarchy and nationalism, the issue I would have would be a monarchy expanding and annexing a whole host of foreign people’s as you have supported several time’s already.
This is your 'life' definition and not from any source. I disagree and just don't view empire this way. Whenever I bring up Japan as an empire, it is simply for having the Emperor rather than having 'expanded' territory outside Japan. Empires don't have to be 'multi-ethnic'. They can be a sort of federation of ethnic kingdoms like the 2nd German Empire. They can be a very pious state like with Japan where they say, 'The Emperor IS Japan'. They can be part of an ethnicity, but not the entire hold of that ethnicity. I tried to build these bridges. Most nationalists don't think in terms of dynastic patriotism, monarchy, and paternalistic/households as foundational for nations to begin with. They don't associate crowns and sovereignty because they like to reject this view. They take after the view of social contract theory, where people can break apart traditional structure and hierarchy at whims. The people choose as a whole. The people do this and do that.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5332
>>5330
Being a weaboo should be a hangin offense
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5335
>>5326
>>5327
>>5328
>>5330
Are you retarded or just have elementary reading comprehension?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5342
>>5335
>keeps asserting his feels on nationalism
<As I said I am a nationalist before a monarchist, I only support what government I think is best for the nation. I will not support a dynasty that harms the nation unnecessarily. Whether that means replacement with another royal family or a whole new government is only something I could say if such an event occurred. Though it’s unlike for me to ever live longer than two Emperors so that is all what if, and nothing I will likely ever have to actually think about realistically. If a emperor is the best way for the nation then he and his government 100% have my support, but only if.
>but I'm retarded if I reject this.
If half the shit you posted wasn't just clarifying what I already told you. All you did was just say "Yes, I understand the importance of the 2nd German Empire and Prussia." All you did was nod off all those glorious things to mitigate my point. And you said as a nationalist you still aren't content with monarchy. You cannot be appeased.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5343
Going to rewind.
<If these two images don't arouse national tendencies, then you're lost to me. The coronation at Versailles was such a kickback at the French when they won the war and the Battle of Sedan, the French chimped out and held a grudge for centuries. Started a commune. Emperor Napoleon III lost his glory. The 2nd German Empire began. If you thinking of WW2, and Hitler moving into Paris, this was the equivalent of just that, except they won and founded their empire. The Palace of Versailles was the ultimate monarchical symbol of French power and glory built by King Louis XIV.
>2nd pic
<Reveals social contract theory and divine right in two. Reveals a Kaiser holding a flag, 'Gott Mitt Uns', an Iron Cross with a providential sunlight behind and thunder/lightning raining down symbolizing Divine Right of Kings. To reveal social contract theory and nationalistic tendencies of 'The People', you see in that image little people tossing up their hats showing their consent as a whole as social contract theory. Before WW1 and beginning with the foundation of the 2nd German Empire, you had the perfect reconciliation of monarchy and all its spiritual values with the nationalistic tendencies and pride of nation. If this isn't good enough for nationalists, grab a gun and shoot yourself in the head. Just take a bullet and end it. You have become a utopian. I cannot save you.
And now for what yous said.
>I can’t say I 100% am, since Austria was left out (of no ones fault but the Habsburg’s).
Choke on a cyanide pill if you aren't content with the foundation of the 2nd German Empire. Your attitude towards the nationalist movement is without regard to political pragmatism. If you cannot accept this because you feel that Hitler was the only one responsible for it (even though he just lost anyways) or don't feel that the history of Frederick the Great, Frederick William IV, Kaiser Wilhelm I and Bismarck, and the foundations of an empire cannot satisfy you a bit. Who looks at everything I told you and say, "I'm not proud and not content with this." I went around to scratch your back and try to reconcile your ideals with the sacred character of monarchy. I tried to build bridges and you've burned them to ash. You've rejected monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings because it's just not good enough for you. I said nothing about the Hapsburgs. I only tried to appeal to your shitty definition of empire from the other side of the German states.
>My mom knows next to nothing about Prussia besides the name Friederich the Great and Bismarck. Her school taught nothing of German history and she thinks the 3rd Reich was just a copy of the 2nd Reich but anti-Semitic.
Besides your mother, the only thing people know about Germany in general is just Hitler. I don't see you bitching about it. If the names of Frederick the Great and Bismarck don't mean anything to you, what am I supposed to say? Does only Hitler matter to you?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5344
You don't say, "That's nothing; I'm not really content with this great moment in history because they weren't able to declare war on the Hapsburgs and maneuver around France." I'm hitting you on the head for not being pragmatic about it to begin with. The only reason they weren't able to do it was because there were Hapsburgs, you're right, and Hitler didn't have that kind of obstacle. The restoration of the Hapsburg throne was thwarted and due to political maneuvering. It was just an empty throne for the taking.
>I merely brought it up because most nationalist movements seemed to be republican at the time and yet they still wanted an emperor. I assume had he accepted the crown, which the nationalists really had no authority to offer, they would have demanded a parliamentary monarchy, and likely would have obsoleted the Kaiser to the point of Britian’s Monarchy.
The very way you consider this like it was a pragmatic and actually practical idea is what makes you doubt you're realistic about German unification and actually proud of it. You are like another bratty republican that just isn't content. I am only sitting here thinking, "How dare you look at this great moment in history and say I'm not content?" You can't just ignore political realities and obstacles. If Frederick William IV accepted the title 'Emperor of Germany' without actually going through what Kaiser Wilhelm I did, it would be a falsehood to be 'Emperor of Germany' because that obviously wasn't the status or the case. You can't just declare yourself an Emperor over those kingdoms without achieving feasible power and having meaning for it like at the coronation at the Palace of Versailles achieved.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5345
I get that you want unification as a whole, but you don't just say, "I want this" and it happens. Where is Germany now? You republicans think all the same with your democratic means of obtaining things. "I want this," and "I want that" and "I'm not content with it." Like always with democracy, it becomes "ME, ME, ME, ME". Politics is the art of conceit. You think you can just unify Germany without a war? You think it's an easy game where you just rally The People™ and not fight for it? Not content? This is vain glory. The direct result of Germany today is WW2. The only time it was unified in a meaningful way that would last was when the imperial throne consolidated power. I'm not content with you as a nationalist.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5348
>>5082
I'm really discontent with the modern incarnate of national socialists. They don't have any decent leadership or movement either. Let alone outside of worshiping Hitler. Where are your leaders?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5349
I don't know why I bother with certain nationalists.
They are never appeased. Fascists exclusively are tolerable.
Fascists don't have a Mein Kampf that denotes no love for dynastic patriotism and rejects monarchy this way.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5353
It's easy to boast about taking Paris when you didn't fight a 2-front war from the start. Imperial Germany already had that glory to begin with. It's part of the reason the French showed so much resistance a 2nd time. Afterwards they were boastful until WW2.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5360
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5361
Germans will find their spirit to survive.
There is a hope and resilience against terrible odds.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5385
>>5361
>Germans will find their spirit to survive.
[citation needed]
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.